Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/93_02_2008.aspx
Summary
Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature (compared to 14 years currently). Unlike the current system, these years could be served without regard to whether they were in the Assembly or Senate. In other words, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses. (As under current law, an individual could serve additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.)
Existing Members of the Legislature could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house (regardless of how many years were already served in the other house). This could result in some current Members serving longer than 14 years in the Legislature.
In general term limits are bad for conservatism. All institutions slowly move to the left over time until they eventually go bankrupt. The speed of this shift is related to the speed of leadership turnover. For new leaders to be elected they must give away part of the store or pander to special interests. Long term leadership promotes stability and tradition which are conservative values. The only reason the socialists are against term limits in California is because they currently control the state. I understand the urge to throw the communist bums out, but terms limits aren’t the way to do it.
Here his Arnie’s op-ed, as referenced in the article. He goes on and on about needing more seasoned legislators and the need to groom policy experts, but the initiative overall *reduces* the combined number of years they can serve in both houses. Oxymoron. This transparent effort to keep his buddy Nunez and Perata in office is almost criminal. I hope everyone sees through it and those two are on the street looking for a new job (until Perata’s relocation to prison, of course).